That was just me repeating someone else’s proposal. ’
We talked before about just letting users use their judgement, which is what most open-source projects do that aren’t run as a dictatorship (benevolent or otherwise). My main worry is that I think it’s going to be hard for us to start vetting and badging people.
How’s a maintainer different than a reviewer? In the past we discussed tech leads (still unclear on role), reviewers (permission to review), and developers (GitHub credentials for stan-dev and ability to vote on Stan governance).
There’s a TWG director, but as far as I know, there isn’t a TWG.
Neither the role of the TWG (aside from the director) or the tech leads have been spelled out. The only official word I know of on @seantalts’s position is this:
If there’s more than that somewhere, please let me know. That post includes this:
The director will operate with a set of clear but high level goals from the SGB to be drafted and voted on separately.
but I do not believe the SGB has laid out any goals. If they have, please let me know where to find them. It also includes this on the tech leads:
- Setting a technical vision and roadmap by acting as the product manager and (re-)negotiating the priorities and technical direction with the TWG leads according to the mission and goals set out by the SGB.
- Act as final judge interpreting the SGB mandate and stakeholder needs to break ties and settle disputes between tech leads.
I think what this document calls “TWG leads” is what everyone’s caling “tech leads”. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t lay out any responsibilities or authority for these tech leads nor does it indicate how disputes will be settled.
There’s nothing in there I see defining the TWG itself.
I also think this needs to be clarified:
- Last-resort, rarely used veto power over any technical decision affecting the
stan-devgithub projects.
It seems to imply someone other than the TWG director at some point is making technical decisions that can be vetoed.