Would you say this is a good TLDR? @getchoo
- minimize tech decisions before governance
- have community play a larger role in the roadmap
I agree especially with since really specific technical decisons (like “Flakes will be standardized with its current implementation as a v0”) that IMO don’t belong in a cant-be-edited plan. Also final stage saying “We have created a sustainable, independent fork […] Now […] first elections” seems to me like “now that all tech decisons have been made, let’s have an election”.
_
Ignoring tech (which I do think is important to keep setting up to maintain momentum), I think the governance phases could look something like:
- just Jake
- boot group (3 people, only meet if theres contention)
- SIG groups and SIG core v1, treat SIG members as some kind of voting group
- Establish “community” definition (v1) as direct democracy (separate from the SIG groups) who gets to vote (limit double-accounts risk)
- We actually just ran into this as a problem for voting on a license and deciding that accounts created after a poll shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the community poll
- Create a steering committee (v1), and designate what roles each (Committee, SIG groups, community) will play for different decisons
- Re-hash some decisons like license, icon, repo name etc after this point
And I’m in favor of putting a bit more effort into the governance side, without stalling the tech deployment side.