david-hernandez/gist:73ab2da065371c7adbe1049a1d72dcd6

## gistfile1.txt
davidhernandez [10:02 AM]
If you’re participating in this meeting, please respond to this thread with your name.

yoroy [10:03 AM]
joined #governance.

davidhernandez [10:04 AM]
I'll start by asking if anyone has any questions? I know there has been some confusion around this process and governance in general. I'm happy to try and clear that up as best I can.

socketwench
[10:04 AM]
Can you briefly outline the process?

davidhernandez [10:05 AM]
@socketwench Sure. Which process in particular? Something specific to these meetings or about the governance changes in general?

socketwench
[10:05 AM]
Just in general for context.

davidhernandez [10:08 AM]
Basically, after the governance survey was conducted a group of us were asked to review the results and see if there was anything to learn from it and report on it. While doing so, we felt that the "governance stuff" hadn't been going anywhere over the summer and were concerned that it will stagnant if we didn't begin doing something. So we took it upon ourselves to hold these meetings with the aim of getting people interested, communicating, and connected with each other. In the hope something would develop from it.

[10:09]
As these meetings go one, we are compiling take aways, all the thoughts and feedback we get from anyone, and report on it. We also aim to create some recommendations that we are working on submitting back to Dries and the DA

[10:10]
So I'm only asking people to share what they want, be it concerns or ideas, or make it know they are willing to even volunteer to help move things along.

[10:10]
We are not, I don't think, yet at the point where we are trying to actually solve the governs problems. We still need to see what we know and figure out how to proceed.

socketwench [10:11 AM]
Thank you.

davidhernandez
[10:12 AM]
So what I'm most interested in are ideas, to any degree people are willing to share them, and concerns people have, to any degree.

[10:13]
A lot of interesting points were brought up yesterday about the process, and making sure there was authority granted to anyone involved before even getting started. (edited)

[10:16]
Three major points I've been taking away from these meetings are a set of criteria that people want met before proceeding with anything. Clarity, around the process and results; authority, to those involved so they know their time will not be wasted; and protection, fas it has been shown those who get involved in these matters can often become the target of scorn and harassment.

[10:16]
Does anyone agree or disagree with those points or want to add to it?

socketwench
[10:17 AM]
I'm liking them so far.

davidhernandez [10:19 AM]
We've seen this in project governance and contribution, where people have complained about the amount of work that can go into an issue/idea with no guarantee it will get accepted. Community governance shouldnt be any different.

[10:22]
Yesterday also had a good amount discussion around a community/drupal values statement. And that a values statement should be created, with clear, strong positions, before governance is tackled. Any opinions on value statements or experience with prior groups that relied on one?

mlhess [10:23 AM]
I would start with the values statement and getting that approved, once that is done, everything else flows from it


davidhernandez
[10:24 AM]
Any opinions on who should be responsible for creating it? Should it be Dries, a collaborative effort, get help from an outside source?

mlhess [10:24 AM]
Someone needs to start a draft and then circulate that draft to "key" folks (each key folk gets their own draft doc).  Then someone takes the drafts and merges them into a final doc for review and comment

[10:24]
is at least the way I have seen it done

[10:25]
Before you get to a draft of values you might need a mission statement

socketwench
[10:25 AM]
I would suggest more than just Dries be responsible for formulating it. More perspectives than one would be helpful.

davidhernandez [10:25 AM]
Who would be those key folks?

mlhess [10:26 AM]
That is a hard question of course :slightly_smiling_face:

davidhernandez [10:27 AM]
There is always this difficult balance regarding community matters between figuring out how the "right" people spring forth from the community versus people being out right selected by Dries or some authority, like the DA.

[10:28]
I would love to know if anyone has seen a process that works for selecting members to positions of power where something more than pure representation is needed.

socketwench [10:29 AM]
This sounds like it will be a "tree process", as @mlhess suggests. We start first with a draft, circulate it to a secondary group (of diverse members, I hope) then on the the wider community.

mlhess [10:29 AM]
Yes

davidhernandez [10:30 AM]
One point brought up, that I think has merit, is that if something like a value statement is left to a broad community consensus that it becomes watered down.

socketwench
[10:31 AM]
Indeed. I have been worrying about that too.

davidhernandez [10:31 AM]
Does anyone agree/disagree with that?

mlhess [10:31 AM]
The other way I have seen this done is anyone can toss out a statement of value, and voting happens on each statement.

[10:32]
However, that can be problematic, but it would reflect "community" values

socketwench
[10:32 AM]
Or whomever can game the system most effectively.

mlhess [10:32 AM]
yes

[10:33]
it is open to gaming, but if you tie to to a user account, then less so.  (a confirmed user account)

davidhernandez
[10:34 AM]
It is also tough to know what "the community" wants versus what the people who showed up then and there to vote on a particular statement they dont like want.

mlhess [10:35 AM]
So maybe we need to define that before we start?

socketwench
[10:35 AM]
Also true. I think there has to be some amount of council-like monitoring and defining. Which leads us back to, how do we select that group of people.

davidhernandez [10:36 AM]
@mlhess Define which part?

socketwench
[10:36 AM]
Defining as to the values statement.

mlhess [10:37 AM]
Who the community is and what makes a person a member of that community?  IE: Do you have to contribute something, (even if not code), does jut having an account count, what if you don't have a D.O account but authorizing spending 100,000 a year on the eco system.    Since we are writing a values statement for the community, we might need to answer who we are writing it for first.

davidhernandez [10:38 AM]
Right

[10:38]
How do we define our values when we aren't clear on who we are.

mlhess [10:39 AM]
That problem maybe harder than writing the values statement

nicklewisatx [10:42 AM]
Maybe the question is how can an open source software project help improve lives, and the world? I know that sounds pretty wishy-washy, but it seems like the core of where our values stem from.

davidhernandez [10:42 AM]
Indeed. Big ticket items. Who are we, and what do we value?

[10:43]
@nicklewisatx Do you feel the Drupal community has a responsibility beyond the concerns of its membership?

[10:44]
Or maybe it could be phrased that the members of the drupal community have values that extend beyond our own sphere and our value statement should reflect that? (edited)

[10:45]
That ties in to scope. How do we define the scope of the community and the scope of governance?

socketwench
[10:50 AM]
That sounds more like a project vision statement (What this project is, and where we hope it to go) versus a community values statement (What kind of behavior we expect of our members, how grievances are handled, how authority is granted/rescinded).

cmcintosh [10:50 AM]
joined #governance.

cmcintosh [10:50 AM]
morning

rachel_norfolk [10:53 AM]
FYI - we do have a values statement for the project. It's actually not bad as many things, such as diversity, can hang off it very well as things we need to do to achieve those values. Doesn't mean it cannot be improved of course! https://www.drupal.org/about/mission-and-principles
Drupal.org
Mission and principles
Drupal's community believes in open source, innovation, globalism, and collaboration. Its mission: to build the best open source content management framework.
Nov 3rd, 2015 at 7:27 AM

cmcintosh [10:53 AM]
a good question i think would be is what are other open source projects doing in this same vein. Say Linux, Apache Foundation, or even something like Wikimedia group

socketwench [10:54 AM]
I would stress that not all OSS groups have social dynamics we should model after -- notably the Linux Kernel group.


cmcintosh [10:54 AM]
for instance how can Drupal lift up folks in third-world economies

[10:55]
Why? what is wrong with that specific group?

[10:55]
honest question, im not deeply involved with them on any level

socketwench [10:57 AM]
Torvalds is notorious for insulting tirades directed at specific individuals. That has knock-on effects as to the kind of behavior that is tolerated, driving away many, many women and PoC contributors.

[10:57]
I use Linux on a day-to-day basis, but there's a reason I stay far, far, *far* away from the kernel group.

[10:58]
And also a reason I'm in Drupal instead.

cmcintosh [10:58 AM]
ah yea, most controlling top level folks can be that way.  Steve jobs is another fine example :x

[10:58]
ok

[10:58]
so i think that sets a good marker on one side, what we dont want the experience to be like

[10:59]
namely dont demean others for the sake of trying to make a point seem better than another

socketwench
[11:00 AM]
Which is why when we think about assembling any group of individuals to produce a values statement, I immediately think, "Can we ask one person (preferable non-white, non-male) that has left the community?"

agentrickard [11:00 AM]
joined #governance.

cmcintosh [11:00 AM]
question becomes though also along with that, some individuals in software dev i have been around are on a autistic spectrum and tend to react in ways that others would be perceived as rude /or calus

[11:01]
well, i wouldn't rule out anyone from that

[11:01]
i mean there are valid reasons for a white male to feel unwelcome in a community even if they have not actively participated in discrimination

[11:01]
or black male, etc

[11:02]
if we are talking inclusiveness we should try to strive so that everyone can feel welcome regardless of background as long as said person is not actively engaging in conscious acts to attack someone

[11:03]
personally, while technically a majority im typically in situations where I am the minority which can make such things a bit intimidating

rachel_norfolk
[11:03 AM]
Just so long as we appreciate that a lack of intent does not necessarily mean a lack of harm. (edited)

cmcintosh [11:04 AM]
of course not

[11:04]
someone can be have a car accident and kill someone, but not mean to do so

[11:04]
i think its a bit worse though if you continue doing so even after you know its causing issues for someone


heyrocker
[11:05 AM]
That person still goes to jail though

cmcintosh [11:05 AM]
true

[11:05]
well, not always

heyrocker [11:05 AM]
often

rachel_norfolk
[11:05 AM]
huh - that would be a first with a death via a vehicle!

perignon [11:05 AM]
joined #governance.

heyrocker
[11:05 AM]
Intent does not absolve responsibiity

cmcintosh [11:06 AM]
yep

[11:06]
but ideally there should be a path to redemption if at all possible

[11:07]
dont know its quite a complex thing

[11:07]
couple of years ago i worked with someone from lgbtq community and it was a bit challenging at first for me because i was always walking on ice, not sure what would or would not offend

[11:08]
and often even more would opt not to ask because of thinking that just asking would offend

[11:08]
ended up working out because she was a decent person and we had similar interests

[11:09]
honestly though im more of a libertarian and feel like people should be able to live as they want so long as its not hurting others around them

[11:10]
but ya there are some ground rules that would be good for out-side of community activities that someone is involved in

[11:11]
obviously would not want a child-predatory or something along those lines at a camp, but how / who's job is that to check

[11:11]
and without becoming like a nanny state or something akin to the current us government

davidhernandez [11:12 AM]
Does anyone think the scope of the community is something that would be defined on its own or would be inherent to some other document like the code of conduct or value statement? I'm not sure how other orgs handle that.

I also have to point out that we are past the 1 hour mark, so I should declare the meeting over, but do continue discussing. I will end the transcript here.

davidhernandez [11:20 AM]
Take aways I'm seeing from today.
1) Define values before governance. 2) Define who we are as a community. What does membership mean? 3) What is the scope of the community. 4) How do you a define groups or individuals that will be involved/appointed?
	davidhernandez [10:02 AM]
	If you’re participating in this meeting, please respond to this thread with your name.

	yoroy [10:03 AM]
	joined #governance.

	davidhernandez [10:04 AM]
	I'll start by asking if anyone has any questions? I know there has been some confusion around this process and governance in general. I'm happy to try and clear that up as best I can.

	socketwench
	[10:04 AM]
	Can you briefly outline the process?

	davidhernandez [10:05 AM]
	@socketwench Sure. Which process in particular? Something specific to these meetings or about the governance changes in general?

	socketwench
	[10:05 AM]
	Just in general for context.

	davidhernandez [10:08 AM]
	Basically, after the governance survey was conducted a group of us were asked to review the results and see if there was anything to learn from it and report on it. While doing so, we felt that the "governance stuff" hadn't been going anywhere over the summer and were concerned that it will stagnant if we didn't begin doing something. So we took it upon ourselves to hold these meetings with the aim of getting people interested, communicating, and connected with each other. In the hope something would develop from it.

	[10:09]
	As these meetings go one, we are compiling take aways, all the thoughts and feedback we get from anyone, and report on it. We also aim to create some recommendations that we are working on submitting back to Dries and the DA

	[10:10]
	So I'm only asking people to share what they want, be it concerns or ideas, or make it know they are willing to even volunteer to help move things along.

	[10:10]
	We are not, I don't think, yet at the point where we are trying to actually solve the governs problems. We still need to see what we know and figure out how to proceed.

	socketwench [10:11 AM]
	Thank you.

	davidhernandez
	[10:12 AM]
	So what I'm most interested in are ideas, to any degree people are willing to share them, and concerns people have, to any degree.

	[10:13]
	A lot of interesting points were brought up yesterday about the process, and making sure there was authority granted to anyone involved before even getting started. (edited)

	[10:16]
	Three major points I've been taking away from these meetings are a set of criteria that people want met before proceeding with anything. Clarity, around the process and results; authority, to those involved so they know their time will not be wasted; and protection, fas it has been shown those who get involved in these matters can often become the target of scorn and harassment.

	[10:16]
	Does anyone agree or disagree with those points or want to add to it?

	socketwench
	[10:17 AM]
	I'm liking them so far.

	davidhernandez [10:19 AM]
	We've seen this in project governance and contribution, where people have complained about the amount of work that can go into an issue/idea with no guarantee it will get accepted. Community governance shouldnt be any different.

	[10:22]
	Yesterday also had a good amount discussion around a community/drupal values statement. And that a values statement should be created, with clear, strong positions, before governance is tackled. Any opinions on value statements or experience with prior groups that relied on one?

	mlhess [10:23 AM]
	I would start with the values statement and getting that approved, once that is done, everything else flows from it


	davidhernandez
	[10:24 AM]
	Any opinions on who should be responsible for creating it? Should it be Dries, a collaborative effort, get help from an outside source?

	mlhess [10:24 AM]
	Someone needs to start a draft and then circulate that draft to "key" folks (each key folk gets their own draft doc). Then someone takes the drafts and merges them into a final doc for review and comment

	[10:24]
	is at least the way I have seen it done

	[10:25]
	Before you get to a draft of values you might need a mission statement

	socketwench
	[10:25 AM]
	I would suggest more than just Dries be responsible for formulating it. More perspectives than one would be helpful.

	davidhernandez [10:25 AM]
	Who would be those key folks?

	mlhess [10:26 AM]
	That is a hard question of course :slightly_smiling_face:

	davidhernandez [10:27 AM]
	There is always this difficult balance regarding community matters between figuring out how the "right" people spring forth from the community versus people being out right selected by Dries or some authority, like the DA.

	[10:28]
	I would love to know if anyone has seen a process that works for selecting members to positions of power where something more than pure representation is needed.

	socketwench [10:29 AM]
	This sounds like it will be a "tree process", as @mlhess suggests. We start first with a draft, circulate it to a secondary group (of diverse members, I hope) then on the the wider community.

	mlhess [10:29 AM]
	Yes

	davidhernandez [10:30 AM]
	One point brought up, that I think has merit, is that if something like a value statement is left to a broad community consensus that it becomes watered down.

	socketwench
	[10:31 AM]
	Indeed. I have been worrying about that too.

	davidhernandez [10:31 AM]
	Does anyone agree/disagree with that?

	mlhess [10:31 AM]
	The other way I have seen this done is anyone can toss out a statement of value, and voting happens on each statement.

	[10:32]
	However, that can be problematic, but it would reflect "community" values

	socketwench
	[10:32 AM]
	Or whomever can game the system most effectively.

	mlhess [10:32 AM]
	yes

	[10:33]
	it is open to gaming, but if you tie to to a user account, then less so. (a confirmed user account)

	davidhernandez
	[10:34 AM]
	It is also tough to know what "the community" wants versus what the people who showed up then and there to vote on a particular statement they dont like want.

	mlhess [10:35 AM]
	So maybe we need to define that before we start?

	socketwench
	[10:35 AM]
	Also true. I think there has to be some amount of council-like monitoring and defining. Which leads us back to, how do we select that group of people.

	davidhernandez [10:36 AM]
	@mlhess Define which part?

	socketwench
	[10:36 AM]
	Defining as to the values statement.

	mlhess [10:37 AM]
	Who the community is and what makes a person a member of that community? IE: Do you have to contribute something, (even if not code), does jut having an account count, what if you don't have a D.O account but authorizing spending 100,000 a year on the eco system. Since we are writing a values statement for the community, we might need to answer who we are writing it for first.

	davidhernandez [10:38 AM]
	Right

	[10:38]
	How do we define our values when we aren't clear on who we are.

	mlhess [10:39 AM]
	That problem maybe harder than writing the values statement

	nicklewisatx [10:42 AM]
	Maybe the question is how can an open source software project help improve lives, and the world? I know that sounds pretty wishy-washy, but it seems like the core of where our values stem from.

	davidhernandez [10:42 AM]
	Indeed. Big ticket items. Who are we, and what do we value?

	[10:43]
	@nicklewisatx Do you feel the Drupal community has a responsibility beyond the concerns of its membership?

	[10:44]
	Or maybe it could be phrased that the members of the drupal community have values that extend beyond our own sphere and our value statement should reflect that? (edited)

	[10:45]
	That ties in to scope. How do we define the scope of the community and the scope of governance?

	socketwench
	[10:50 AM]
	That sounds more like a project vision statement (What this project is, and where we hope it to go) versus a community values statement (What kind of behavior we expect of our members, how grievances are handled, how authority is granted/rescinded).

	cmcintosh [10:50 AM]
	joined #governance.

	cmcintosh [10:50 AM]
	morning

	rachel_norfolk [10:53 AM]
	FYI - we do have a values statement for the project. It's actually not bad as many things, such as diversity, can hang off it very well as things we need to do to achieve those values. Doesn't mean it cannot be improved of course! https://www.drupal.org/about/mission-and-principles
	Drupal.org
	Mission and principles
	Drupal's community believes in open source, innovation, globalism, and collaboration. Its mission: to build the best open source content management framework.
	Nov 3rd, 2015 at 7:27 AM

	cmcintosh [10:53 AM]
	a good question i think would be is what are other open source projects doing in this same vein. Say Linux, Apache Foundation, or even something like Wikimedia group

	socketwench [10:54 AM]
	I would stress that not all OSS groups have social dynamics we should model after -- notably the Linux Kernel group.


	cmcintosh [10:54 AM]
	for instance how can Drupal lift up folks in third-world economies

	[10:55]
	Why? what is wrong with that specific group?

	[10:55]
	honest question, im not deeply involved with them on any level

	socketwench [10:57 AM]
	Torvalds is notorious for insulting tirades directed at specific individuals. That has knock-on effects as to the kind of behavior that is tolerated, driving away many, many women and PoC contributors.

	[10:57]
	I use Linux on a day-to-day basis, but there's a reason I stay far, far, far away from the kernel group.

	[10:58]
	And also a reason I'm in Drupal instead.

	cmcintosh [10:58 AM]
	ah yea, most controlling top level folks can be that way. Steve jobs is another fine example :x

	[10:58]
	ok

	[10:58]
	so i think that sets a good marker on one side, what we dont want the experience to be like

	[10:59]
	namely dont demean others for the sake of trying to make a point seem better than another

	socketwench
	[11:00 AM]
	Which is why when we think about assembling any group of individuals to produce a values statement, I immediately think, "Can we ask one person (preferable non-white, non-male) that has left the community?"

	agentrickard [11:00 AM]
	joined #governance.

	cmcintosh [11:00 AM]
	question becomes though also along with that, some individuals in software dev i have been around are on a autistic spectrum and tend to react in ways that others would be perceived as rude /or calus

	[11:01]
	well, i wouldn't rule out anyone from that

	[11:01]
	i mean there are valid reasons for a white male to feel unwelcome in a community even if they have not actively participated in discrimination

	[11:01]
	or black male, etc

	[11:02]
	if we are talking inclusiveness we should try to strive so that everyone can feel welcome regardless of background as long as said person is not actively engaging in conscious acts to attack someone

	[11:03]
	personally, while technically a majority im typically in situations where I am the minority which can make such things a bit intimidating

	rachel_norfolk
	[11:03 AM]
	Just so long as we appreciate that a lack of intent does not necessarily mean a lack of harm. (edited)

	cmcintosh [11:04 AM]
	of course not

	[11:04]
	someone can be have a car accident and kill someone, but not mean to do so

	[11:04]
	i think its a bit worse though if you continue doing so even after you know its causing issues for someone


	heyrocker
	[11:05 AM]
	That person still goes to jail though

	cmcintosh [11:05 AM]
	true

	[11:05]
	well, not always

	heyrocker [11:05 AM]
	often

	rachel_norfolk
	[11:05 AM]
	huh - that would be a first with a death via a vehicle!

	perignon [11:05 AM]
	joined #governance.

	heyrocker
	[11:05 AM]
	Intent does not absolve responsibiity

	cmcintosh [11:06 AM]
	yep

	[11:06]
	but ideally there should be a path to redemption if at all possible

	[11:07]
	dont know its quite a complex thing

	[11:07]
	couple of years ago i worked with someone from lgbtq community and it was a bit challenging at first for me because i was always walking on ice, not sure what would or would not offend

	[11:08]
	and often even more would opt not to ask because of thinking that just asking would offend

	[11:08]
	ended up working out because she was a decent person and we had similar interests

	[11:09]
	honestly though im more of a libertarian and feel like people should be able to live as they want so long as its not hurting others around them

	[11:10]
	but ya there are some ground rules that would be good for out-side of community activities that someone is involved in

	[11:11]
	obviously would not want a child-predatory or something along those lines at a camp, but how / who's job is that to check

	[11:11]
	and without becoming like a nanny state or something akin to the current us government

	davidhernandez [11:12 AM]
	Does anyone think the scope of the community is something that would be defined on its own or would be inherent to some other document like the code of conduct or value statement? I'm not sure how other orgs handle that.

	I also have to point out that we are past the 1 hour mark, so I should declare the meeting over, but do continue discussing. I will end the transcript here.

	davidhernandez [11:20 AM]
	Take aways I'm seeing from today.
	1) Define values before governance. 2) Define who we are as a community. What does membership mean? 3) What is the scope of the community. 4) How do you a define groups or individuals that will be involved/appointed?