Hey all,
I talked to @betanalpha and asked to post his governance proposal, which was internal to the SGB for the past few months as we all discussed it and worked on it to try to come up with the system that would replace the SGB. Here it is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yQ1pgedjoffChhg6VqOXSl3leFift--soBfcZTZNHdk/edit?usp=sharing
All,
The SGB wants to review the proposal (scroll up a bit for the draft) so the vote will be further delayed. October 5th is the āsafeā bet for some sort of decision. But please keep talking in this thread.
Breck
Thanks!
Thanks, @seantalts! Iām current in Mexico teaching Stan and consulting with many of the great practitioners here already using Stan so have been and will continue to be mostly away from my computer until after next week.
The goal of this proposal is to establish both an inclusive electorate and governing body with explicit responsibilities and mandates. The lack of explicit responsibilities in particular has been an issue with the current governing body.
I am fortunate to have had lots of useful feedback from some members of the governing body and members of the Stan community but this is very much a draft, especially with the exact scope of each role. Note also that, like Breckās proposed governance, this governance proposal is entirely my own and has no approval from the Stan Governing Body.
All,
The vote may not happen for the expanded electorate before we vote on a new SGB. Does anyone care? I care but it might just be me.
With out action the electorate will be the Stan Developers Group + SGB. We could do worse.
I can call a vote Monday, still accepting modifications in any case. We are looking at an SGB election Oct 23 so timeās a wasting.
Breck
I still donāt understand why the SGB canāt just declare the electorate. Weāre a very much not for profit open source project not a Fortune 500 company. If the electorate needs to be decided, decide it.
Itās a bit tricky here in that the SGB would be deciding on who reappoints the SGB. At one extreme, they could make the electorate themselves and reappoint themselves. At the other extreme (which seems to be where the SGBās aiming), the electorate would include anyone for whom thereās a record of contact with Stan. Iām OK with the middle ground of the current electorate.
As someone this decision will directly impact (I wonāt have a say in the current SGB reelection but could potentially under the new assembly model) I think you should just push ahead and reelect with the current electorate.
Leave it as a mandate for the new SGB that they need to decide upon and expand who is important to the Stan community in terms of voting. If you canāt do that, thereās clearly enough people who want this to happen that there will continue to be support and people badgering the new SGB for it.
My 2 cents on the assembly is that it shouldnāt happen before a code of conduct for the entire community is created and agreed upon. Then all members of the assembly should have to agree to comply by the CoC and agree they need to act wherever they see violations. Thatās off topic for this conversation (and very much my own opinion), but another potential reason to want to hold off the change in electorate.
If you get to the guts of the proposal there is a committee appointed by the SGB that can change the rules as long as the SGB approves. The executive director, currently me, is part of that committee.
I wrote the last proposal based on feedback from here, an hour long Stan Community meeting at StanCon and discussions with the SGB members. The SGB has not discussed it as a group but hopefully Monday.
We can have a proposal that says āLet the SGB sort the electorate outā which I would happily include in the vote with approval voting. But someone needs to propose it in exact language.
My personal belief is that the community should ultimately control this project and electorates are important. We donāt have any candidate BDFLs (Benevolent Dictator for Life) so voting in leadership and voting on referendums is where we are at.
This is a very good conversation and I appreciate the effort going into refining how we make decisions at this very basic level.
Breck
Is this this third or fourth referendum in a year-ish? (Pre-SGB, SGB, Extend the SGB, change who can appoint the SGB). Endless referendums or BDFL are not the only two models. Representative democracy exists for a reason.
It is embarrassing at this point MORE THAN A YEAR after the SGB that this has not happened.
I think everyoneās on board with this. It just requires a notion of (1) who gets a vote and if not the same, (2) who the representatives actually represent. The current alternatives seem to be (A) anyone involved in any way with Stan, or (B) developers who are contributing to Stanās software or design.