Community Representation on Node.js Advisory Board

[dshaw]

Scott Hammond, Joyent’s new CEO, has outlined a plan for the Node.js Advisory Board. If you haven’t had the opportunity to digest this plan, please take a moment to do so.

• Node.js Advisory Board Charter
• Joyent Advisory Board announcement
• Node.js Advisory Board Members (interim)

The advisory board charter defines 13 seats represented as follows:

• Project Lead (TJ Fontaine)
• 2 seats for the top core technical contributors
• 4 corporate seats
• 4 “user” seats
• One curator seat (Chris Williams)
• One Open Source Software guidance seat (Danese Cooper)

An advisory board membership term lasts for 12 months. With the exception of the Project Lead, all members can serve a maximum of two consecutive terms.

The interim advisory board is tasked with the job of replacing itself. One key concern that has been raised since the first advisory board meeting is how to better engage the broader community interests in the Advisory Board process. The Advisory Board charter defines “user” seats as:

These seats are for organizations that are using Node.js. To be nominated, an end-user company must currently be using Node.js in production and have published a use case on the Node.js website. Once nominations have been closed, selection will be made by a vote by eligible contributors. Eligible contributors are those who are currently active and have had at least one non-trivial pull request merged to master in the past six months.

The concern here is that this marginalizes the broader Node Community by defining community as only represented by companies. The purpose of this issue is to collect feedback and potentially prepare an alternative representation model.

Your feedback is crucial here:

1. What are the community representation models we can draw inspiration from?
2. How many seats should community representatives hold?
3. How do we define which ecosystems should be represented?
4. Who would you nominate to represent you?

[junosuarez]

Additional questions:

• Why is "user" defined that way when the "corporate" category also exists?
• How are "corporate" representatives chosen?
• Do the (consecutive) term limits for corporate representatives apply to the individual or to the corporation?
• Is it the same for "user" seats with regard to companies or other organizations they may represent?
• With the criteria as written, what is the process (and criteria) for getting a "use case published on the Node.js website"? Is this a marketing case study for Joyent?

[max-mapper]

I have a basic question which is: who wrote http://nodejs.org/about/advisory-board/, is it in source control, and if we have questions about the text there who can we hold accountable to get official, public clarification from on behalf of Joyent?

[dshaw]

@jden Great questions, though I would encourage exploring corporate representation in a separate issue.

[rvagg]

@maxogden https://github.com/joyent/node-website/tree/master/doc/about/advisory-board

[max-mapper]

@rvagg cheers m8!

[voodootikigod]

@rvagg so quick on the draw!

[dshaw]

@maxogden It is in source control under https://github.com/joyent/node-website. It was added by @tjfontaine on October 22nd. nodejs/nodejs.org-archive@cce2b8c

[max-mapper]

@dshaw thanks, I just made a PR with that info nodejs/nodejs.org-archive#55

[rvagg]

I'd like to see the "project leader" and "curator" seats merged in to one seat, properly called something like a "facilitator". The current model simply reinforces the BDFL model which everyone, including Joyent, have stated their desire to step away from. I'd also like to see this seat become non-permanent too, again it reinforces the wrong leadership model.

The leadership this board needs is simply to facilitate meetings, make sure the agenda is sorted, minutes are taken, make sure action items are created and passed out and make sure that the board is sticking by its stated purpose.

[rockbot]

I'd like to see at least one user seat given to someone who represents the general, non-company-based user base. i.e. someone who doesn't represent a company (even if they get paid to do node.js full time). There are a LOT of folks who write node for fun, on the weekends/evenings/etc who care about where node as a project is going, even if they're not necessarily profiting from it.

[voodootikigod]

@rvagg

The curator role is mainly just making sure the events happen, meeting minutes recorded, and everyone acts with the appropriate decorum and conduct during the meetings (much like you have outlined). The role attempts to ensure that the schedule is adhered to while still allowing for the natural ebb and flow of conversation and encourage new voices. I, personally, -- especially being in the role now -- view this very much as temporal and not permanent by any means. My goal is to make it and all roles within the advisory temporal in order to allow different voices and ideas to flow through the project.

In terms of project lead, I - again personal opinion - view this as a far more technical role with the curator/moderator being a far more human role.

[rockbot]

I'd also like some official wording that discusses how the committee will ensure that it has the most diverse advisory board possible. I'm not just talking about race/gender, but also profit/non-profit, hobby/corporate, academic/non-academic, etc.

Ideally, this would mean having equivalent representation on the board as the user base, so if 40% of node users work at node-based companies, then 40% of the board consists of company-based representatives. I don't know how you'd get those numbers necessarily, but at least that way we'd all feel more comfortable knowing that the group truly represents userland as a whole and not just corporate interests.

[rvagg]

@rockbot there are supposed to be 4 seats for "users" but it's a little vague on how these will be chosen. I have concerns about trying to solidify this concept of a "user base" or even "community", it's impossible to pin down exactly what that is when we need to be formal about it. I guess a process of self-nomination and then voting by the TC or other existing body would make sense but the risk is in reinforcing the ownership of the process by the "Node elite" (which, sadly, is a bit easier to pin down and probably includes you and me). Some kind of process that invites and encourages involvement by a very broad base of Node consumers and people around those consumers (including educators, evangelists, etc.), even the ones we need see or hear from on Twitter or Github, would be ideal. I'm just not sure how you formalise that for the purposes of this process.