Glad you spotted that Dan, you didn’t miss it. I just edited it so it’s there now. It’s a one year term.
The things the SGB is responsible for are like Stancons, managing some sorta funds, code of conduct stuff, and are there other things? I vaguely remember seeing a list somewhere but it might be good to put at least a few things here.
For what its worth, in my opinion as ex exec dir, the SGB is going to have to be a ‘working board’ that meets weekly. If the SGB is going to realistically allocate current funds (approximately $400k), fund raise, handle code of conduct complaints and manage current hires one can expect a weekly meeting and 5 or more hours a week of time.
Thanks Breck. You might be right but I’m hopeful it can be less than that because the next SGB can learn from the experience of the provisional SGB and improve the way items are delegated to other members of the community via groups or new positions formed to handle specific tasks. I also think there are good candidates who (understandably) won’t be able to offer five hours a week but would still be very productive.
Nominations are now open! Please see:
I second Breck that the board benefits from people with time to contribute to Stan, but I also hope it won’t keep anyone from nominating themselves (or encouraging someone else to self-nominate). Everyone on the current SGB agrees we want the next board to learn from us but also do what works for the new group of individuals. This could be 5/hours a week or it could be that the board meets in person to hash out some of the harder stuff, like governance structure, formalizing code of conduct and surrounding policies etc…
Thanks Lizzie, I agree!
And just to be clear to anyone reading this who might want to nominate themselves, there is no official hourly time commitment, just the commitment to the one year term.
Yeah, I think if the board can hash out some of the harder stuff like this at the beginning then it will hopefully result in a much lower time commitment after that, especially if the board can effectively leverage the Stan community and not put too much on the individual SGB members. Of course this will be up to the new board to decide!
I think it’s been a really interesting experience so far and I’d like to encourage lots of folks and especially users of Stan to nominate themselves - this is a great way to get pretty involved and requires no prior experience or credentials. I’d recommend setting aside an hour a week for the meetings most weeks and bringing a collaborative attitude, but those aren’t official requirements either, haha.
I just want to echo what @jonah, @lizzieinvancouver, and @seantalts have said. With good organization and structure amongst the governing body the time burden can reasonable and distributed to allow one to contribute when hours are available during the one’s week; I think that we’re all happy to offer advice based on our experience to help establish the new governing body establish a structure that works for them.
The main power of the governing body is to make decisions, and often the burden falls on the governing body to also propose exactly upon what is decided and exactly what the options are. Much of that work, however, can be delegated to the community, which not only reduces the burden on the governing body but also fosters engagement with the community.
There are many critical decisions to be made by the next governing body, including a project-wide code of conduct, electorate structure, governance structure, and technical working group structure. If you are at all interested in fostering the project through those transitions then I encourage you to consider nominating yourself, especially if you consider yourself an outsider within the community. There are more people using Stan to great effect but consider themselves outsiders than there are vocal insiders, and your experience will be critical to the development of the project.
Does the current SGB have a transition plan in mind? I think it would be nice to have either
One member of the old board on the new (or preferably just running and letting people decide)
Have the current SGB form into an advisory committee that the new SGB can utilize
I dont want to volun-tell anyone to do stuff but I think Jonah would be good at (1). Does anyone have thoughts?
I think we’d all make ourselves available to the new board without needing to be on it or part of an official committee :)
What thread should we use to ask questions of the candidates? I’d like to know how they’re going to solve stalled PRs, assuming that is the body we’re supposed to appeal to.
It feels like ^ would be something more for the technical working group
re stalled PRs - the technical working group doesn’t exist.
either the next SGB will have to figure out how to create a good decision-making framework for good software development or the devs will have to sort it out amongst themselves.
I found two links, given below:
Does the TWG Director position still exist? The last appointment to the position is outlined earlier this year in thread 7780. Does the director still have the powers outlined in list item e) of the older thread 5693?
e) Technical Working Group (TWG) leader: Bob at this point. Override authority on any decisions made by anyone level d) and lower, override should be applied rarely. Cannot be a Technical leader for a domain. Can create, merge or remove domains. Answers to the SGB and can be overruled by SGB. Appointed by SGB.
@ChrisChiasson, thanks for bringing this up. There definitely should be a space to ask questions to the candidates. I am unsure if @jonah or anyone else has specific plans how this should go. If it is not planned, I can make it happen. It would probably be a separate thread and some timing considerations might be necessary (question answering makes the most sense when all the candidates are known, but before voting starts, however the nomination period is directly followed by voting period, so some tradeoff will have to be made).
I would kindly ask you to keep this thread directly election-related and discuss specifics (e.g. the state of the TWG position) as a new topic.
The SGB can influence basically any process withing the Stan project, if it chooses to do so. So asking about stalled PRs (or basically anything else) is IMHO not off-topic, but it might well be a wrong abstraction level. I guess SGB will more likely decide on the overall governance of development. But specific cases might be important to inform how the general procedure should be setup.
I understand that you are frustrated about the PR process and hope we can find a good solution going forward. I don’t want to silence the discussion about the issue, I just don’t want this thread to be derailed as I fear you concerns might not be adressed quickly. So feel free to move it elsewhere
Hope that makes sense!
I guess we don’t have a rule other than the nominations thread is just nominations, so as long as the nominations thread is kept with no discussion I’m ok with whatever you think is best (e.g. separate thread) for asking candidates questions.
Also I expect more nominations to be coming in the next few days (I’ve heard from people).
And yeah the future of the TWG and such things will be handled by the next SGB. That doesn’t mean that the SGB members will themselves be the TWG members, but @ChrisChiasson’s question is still a fair question to ask of the candidates.
Thanks Steve. I’m definitely open to this! I wanted to give new people a chance to nominate themselves first, but many people have also suggested to me that this would be helpful.