docs: OEP 63 - TOC Resolution Request #484
Conversation
openedx-webhooks
added
the
open-source-contribution
|
Thanks for the pull request, @antoviaque! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR. Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:
All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here. Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green. |
|
@e0d This is a first draft, would you like to do a pass of review? |
|
I will take a detailed pass through tomorrow. Thanks for pulling this together. |
|
It's great to clarify how the TOC can be involved with the community and vice-versa. One suggestion for this OEP: at least in US courts, an appeal is what happens if you don't like a decision that has been made, and you kick it up to a higher authority. That was my first thought when I saw "TOC Appeal." Using some of your other words in this draft, maybe we could call it "Request for TOC Decision" ? |
I agree with this, I'd even soften it more, "Request of TOC input." |
|
label: core contributor |
github-actions
bot
added
the
core contributor
…-toc-arbitration.rst
|
@nedbat @e0d Good point about the fact that, for a decision to be appealed, it needs to have been taken already :) For a better name, "TOC Decision" would work for me. "TOC Input" seem weak - if people want to ask for only "input", they can already do that via the forum for example, or asking TOC members directly. Since we are trying to establish a formal decision process for the TOC based on community input/issues, the name should convey that notion imho. At the same time, since the TOC can also refuse to take the decision (or can have a hard time taking decisions too :) ), I understand the hesitation. So I've looked into alternatives words, and "TOC Arbitration" could be a good one - it conveys the authority and decision-making power of the TOC on the topics submitted, while giving plenty of room to give any type of response the TOC wishes. |
|
@e0d Btw, since it can be tricky sometimes to get the group to take decisions on a topic, it could be a good occasion to describe a formal mechanism here to help with that? For example, something like that could help ensuring we are able to take decisions, after the topic has been discussed:
This way, there would be an easy way to take decisions when there is consensus on what is brought up to the TOC, while leaving the work of drafting a consensual proposal would be left to the community members posting the proposal (if they want a quick decision, they need to make sure there won't be objections to it). On the other side, asking TOC members to write a counter-proposal when they object would ensure people don't object too easily to everything :) and would ensure there is a clear next step when there is no consensus? |
antoviaque
changed the title
+1 |
|
|
||
| However, some of the decisions can sometimes be complex: lack of consensus, decisions with long-lasting reprecussions. This can result in delaying taking *any* decision, which can be more hurtful than any of the choices. | ||
|
|
||
| In this OEP, the TOC defines a process for community members to bring up topics to the board's attention, and request to take a decision about a proposal (an "Appeal"). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar to the comment @nedbat made, I would open the aperture here to provide a mechanism for seeking input, review, advice. I'd change the language of appeal, which Ned noted, can mean override a decision you don't like.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@e0d I agree that the original name of appeal did not match well the use case - I replied on this topic to #484 (comment) and modified the proposal to "arbitration". What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, based on this follow-up conversation #484 (comment) I've changed it again to @nedbat 's proposal, of "TOC Decision"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This can be resolved when we converge here, https://github.com/openedx/open-edx-proposals/pull/484/files#r1316252934
| - *when an important decision is being deferred and not making a call is causing friction* | ||
| - *to focus the community to collaborate on key, shared value, say, investment in maturing LTI* | ||
|
|
||
| Specification |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also spoke about having a routine process for TOC review and participation in the OEP process. If I remember correctly @georgebabey was going to make a recommendation about that. Should that be considered here as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@e0d That would definitely be great to have! And I'm happy to include something about this here. @georgebabey would you like to suggest something inline in this PR? If you have some ideas, I can also give a shot at integrating them in the current document.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@georgebabey Any progress on this?
| - Open a discussion in a public place, such as the `forum <discuss.openedx.org/>`_ or using one of the formal decision recording formats such as `OEPs <https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>`_. The topics presented need to have been discussed in the community before being formally considered by the TOC. | ||
| - After public review, post a formal request to appeal to the TOC. This can be done in a forum post or a `github ticket <https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/new>`_ mentioning the TOC chair (@e0d). See the format below. | ||
| - Core contributors and/or TOC members supporting the appeal reply in the thread to say so | ||
| - If the requirements are met, the TOC will schedule the topic for a future meeting. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would folks potentially join a TOC meeting to discuss or would that happen "behind closed doors?"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@e0d Good point - I'm guessing the TOC will still want to have the possibility to do some of the discussion behind closed doors (though there would still be the summary notes published as usual, so it's not fully closed doors), it makes sense for the person who is submitting the request to be able to present it. And if that's a discussion with multiple parties (for example if there is a disagreement on a direction to take), to be fair the presentation would probably have to include the different parties/opinions.
To also keep it async, maybe it could be under the format of being able to submit presentation videos/materials for the TOC to review async? Any party who would like to could submit a video/presentation async in advance of the meeting. The TOC members, when reviewing the materials in advance, could request some of the parties to join the meeting, to ask questions or discuss.
Let me know what you think? If that works for you, I'll add it to the document.
itsjeyd
added
the
waiting on author
| =========================================== | ||
|
|
||
| - Open a discussion in a public place, such as the `forum <discuss.openedx.org/>`_ or using one of the formal decision recording formats such as `OEPs <https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/>`_. The topics presented need to have been discussed in the community before being formally considered by the TOC. | ||
| - After public review, post a formal arbitration request to the TOC. This can be done in a forum post or a `github ticket <https://github.com/openedx/wg-coordination/issues/new>`_ mentioning the TOC chair (@e0d). See the format below. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I always worry about splitting communication and would limit the request to only be via github ticket. We can templatize the request as per your recommendation below. If there is already a discussion in a public place prior to the arbitration request we risk further discussion in the arbitration request if it comes via a forum post.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@georgebabey That's a good point, it would make sense to make the arbitration request always be a github ticket - besides the split discussion that you mention, it would likely help processing to have a single consistent way to make the request. Maybe the option of the forum post could be replaced by a requirement to notify in the existing public discussion that an arbitration request has been made, and to link to the github ticket representing it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@georgebabey I have implemented this as I was suggesting above - let me know if that works?
Co-authored-by: Sarina Canelake <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sarina Canelake <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@antoviaque @itsjeyd I do not need to review further on this. I defer to @e0d 's approval
|
@sarina @antoviaque Sounds good, thanks. |
itsjeyd
added
waiting on author
itsjeyd
removed
the
waiting on author
|
Hi @e0d, just checking in to see if you'll be able to get back to this PR in the coming days? |
antoviaque
changed the title
|
Hi @e0d, just checking in to see what the next steps are for getting this PR over the line? |
|
@antoviaque @e0d What's the latest status of this PR? Are you still planning on getting it merged? |
|
@itsjeyd I would definitely still want to get this to the finish line! @e0d Do you want to pick a time to iron this out? https://calendly.com/antoviaque/30min |
|
Hi @antoviaque and @e0d, any updates here? |
itsjeyd
added
the
waiting on author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@antoviaque thanks for you patience. I've taken a final pass through this and think that all of my comments have been addressed. I think we are good to move forward.
|
@georgebabey did you have any further input you wanted to provide? |
|
Also apologies for the delay - I think this is a great starting point and appreciate all the work and revisions @antoviaque! I think we should land this as is, we can always make future improvements based on how people are leveraging the TOC. |
|
@e0d @georgebabey Thank you for the reviews! And for the improvements you have contributed. It's great to see the TOC take this step to invite interactions with the broader community. Curious to see what the community will make of it! @itsjeyd FYI ^ I don't have merge rights here so someone else will need to merge the OEP. I can announce it on the forums afterwards. |
antoviaque
changed the title
|
@antoviaque 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future. |
itsjeyd
removed
waiting on author
OEP-63 was accepted and merged in openedx#484 but the status of the OEP hasn't been updated.
OEP-63 was accepted and merged in #484 but the status of the OEP hasn't been updated.
OEP-63 was accepted and merged in openedx#484 but the status of the OEP hasn't been updated.
The TOC discussed during the April 2023 meeting a series of guidelines for operating and taking decisions. This includes establishing a way for the community to use the TOC to help take decisions, which this OEP implements.