The weekly hourly office hours call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-10AM PST on Tuesdays.
Meeting Minutes – November 10, 2020
Attendees
Darian
Luciano
Steve
Brian
Tim G.
Fernando
Sylvain
The list of sub-projects needs to be formally enumerated by the new governance
The individual decision makers for sub-projects need to be enumerated on a per-project basis
Should the list of committers be the same as the list of decision makers? This is a very large list.
The basic question is: how do we bootstrap the list of decision makers?
We could pick an initial group of people from the committers or maintainers whose responsibility it is to pick the decision makers for each project’s decision making authority.
What is the responsibility of a decision-making body’s bootstrapping group?
Are they the seed of the group (the people who get actual votes)?
Are they simply charged with picking the group and dissolves after the decision makers are named?
How do we pick the size of the decision making body?
ipython has 717 contributors over many years, most have not been active “recently”, how do we pick who should vote?
Is the decision making body the same as the group whose consensus we seek? (Probably not…)
We should start a separate document to describe the process of bootstrapping the decision making bodies.
We also need to create a default mechanism to allow sub-projects to replace members of their decision-making body
The weekly hourly office hours call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-11AM PST on Tuesdays.
Meeting Minutes – November 17, 2020
Attendees
Darian
Steve
Fernando
Sharan
Tim
First half of the meeting was dedicated to the newly revived community call
We revisited the bootstrapping decision making bodies guide
Let’s start with the two hard problems:
JupyterLab
JupyterHub
We worked on the draft of the bootstrapping guide to “dog food” it by showing up to upcoming Lab and Hub meetings and asking the teams how they feel about trying the process out
The weekly governance call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-11AM PST on Fridays.
Note: This call has moved to Fridays.
Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2021
Attendees
Brian
Fernando
Darian
Steve
Sequencing of approval:
We could do either SSC or BoD or in parallel.
Bootstrapping the SSC depends on software projects and decision making guide.
Decision making guide needs to be finished
Working call: we spent time on addressing the comments to the decision making guide PR in a draft to push as a revision to the PR. Current working draft update is here: Decision Making Guide - HackMD
The weekly governance call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-11AM PST on Fridays.
Note: This call has moved to Fridays.
Meeting Minutes – January 22, 2021
Attendees
Brian
Fernando
Darian
Steve
Working call: we spent time on addressing the comments to the decision making guide PR in a draft to push as a revision to the PR. Current working draft update is here: Decision Making Guide - HackMD
Sorry for the backlog of meeting minutes, folks. My schedule has changed recently and I’ve been missing the first half of meetings but I am getting back into things!
The weekly governance call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-11AM PST on Fridays.
Meeting Minutes – February 26, 2021
Attendees
Fernando
Luciano
Sharan
Jason
Sylvain
Steve
Darian
Working call spent discussing and working on subproject refactoring/grouping document. Also reviewed and added new items to non-software working groups
Plan for next week:
Finalize the list of software projects
Resolve the comments in the software projects document
Move the non-list portion of the software projects document into other governance PRs
The weekly governance call is open to the community members who care about governance issues. The call is held 9-11AM PST on Fridays.
Meeting Minutes – March 19, 2021
Attending: Fernando, Darian, Steven, Brian, Sharan, Jason
Renamed “Software projects in Jupyter ecosystem”to “Software Subprojects of Project Jupyter” and reviewed latest changes
Discussion of what do we do with things in Jupyter that could be viewed as products (nbviewer, binder) and is there grounds for potential for conflicts of interests.
Hi folks! Sorry for the lack of updates for the past few calls.
We’ve spent the entirety of those meetings as working calls on the draft documents.
This led to opening the Software Steering Council draft pull request in the governance repo last week. Please take a moment to look it over and comment: https://github.com/jupyter/governance/pull/98
We have addressed the comments on the open pull request. If you would like to comment while the PR is still in draft mode, we will keep it as a draft until next week’s meeting. We’d like to open it up for voting after that.
Special thanks to @willingc who has provided extensive feedback! Even though Carol hasn’t been able to participate in most of the Friday meetings, you’ve done a terrific job providing asynchronous feedback, and we really appreciate it
We’ve tried to address all comments, so if you have any please hop in now, so we can then move it out of draft status without resetting the voting clock at that point.
I added some additional comments on the draft PR. While there are several comments, they center around making the Working Groups more explicitly defined and be bootstrapped with the initial adoption of the governance.
For example,
Working Groups
The following are working groups at the adoption of this governance model:
Diversity and Inclusion
Community Events and Management
Accessibility
Internationalization
One representative from each working group will be included in the bootstrapping of this governance adoption.
IMHO, each of these are as important as the software subprojects and should be represented.
We have addressed the comments on the open pull request. If you would like to comment while the PR is still in draft mode, we will keep it as a draft until next week’s meeting. We’d like to open it up for voting after that. 
