Add "committer team facilitator" and "core initiative facilitator" roles to core governance

@Gábor Hojtsy IMO the initiative facilitators and the committer facilitators collaborate on the task of scheduling the Hard Problems meetings, just like the release managers and the committer facilitators collaborate on the minor release process and release notes.

I'm +1 on this. It's a good idea to formalize both roles and I'm on board with the proposed write-ups.

Side note: I agree that initiative facilitators and committer facilitators would collaborate on the agenda of a meeting. In the end, it is the "strategic owner" that should have the final say on the agenda of a meeting; e.g. the committers would have the final say on the agenda rather than the facilitators. To me, this is implied. We work well together, so I don't believe this has ever been a problem in practice. I'm really not worried about it, but we could certainly clarify it with an extra sentence, if people feel strongly about it.

I didn't realise that the committer team facilitator role didn't officially exist!

I've discussed this elsewhere with several people but my main bit of feedback is that it's not realistic to perform this job as described with 10-15 hours per month.

It seems strange having this conversation now, having now been in the role since 2019, but I am not sure how best to move this forward.

I've created an MR for the proposal. And then made the change requested in #9. Plus two other minor changes.

The remaining task is to resolve the time commitment for the 'Committer team facilitator'. Since there is agreement on the initiative facilitator shall we move that to another issue so it can be committed?

The two tasks "Schedule and lead committer team meetings" and "Organize strategic core sprints and Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) discussions at key community events" are different and require different skills. I think that could be split into two positions. Although, I can't think of a name for the second one.

Setting to NR for opinions.

Jess mentioned that the structure of these don't seem to match the existing roles, I took another look at that. Indeed. None of the other roles have time commitment or terms. Terms would be introduced in its own issue at #2974514: Adopt renewable terms for core governance roles → , so we could only commit those parts if that lands first. Time commitment would be a nice addition to the other roles, but I doubt we can define it quite closely as evidenced by the discussion above. Time spent on let's say framework management largely depends on what other framework managers spend and how many of them are there.

Going on, the descriptions introduced here specify the entry criteria to the role first and foremost (Skills and experience), which is also nowhere to be seen in the existing role descriptions. I think that would be an improvement if we are to use this doc to recruit new people or to showcase what kind of people would fit the role. However we are not explaining the general goals of the role at all and go into super detail instead. That kind of detail is also not present in any of the existing roles, where we break down the role into major areas and detail them further. Such as how meetings are organized is detailed here while how releases are made is not detailed under release management. Given how inflexible the governance docs can be from recent experience, I would propose we don't go into that much detail for either role and use other means to document and pass on that know-how. We don't know project lead level agreement to change whether meetings should be scheduled 5 or 8 weeks out of events :)

I also noticed minor formatting to fix, committed directly to the MR.

Re #17, I think the initiative coordinator's job would include making sure the initiative has event presence (contribution events and BoFs), so I don't think there is a new role to be introduced, that should move to the initiative coordinator role IMHO. Its otherwise arbitrarily disconnected from the initiatives. With the core team facilitator where it is, the role does not require to participate in the initiatives themselves, yet it would be a responsibility to do this part only. It feels odd there IMHO.

We also have a stub document to add this sort of info for other roles:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wVCvb0nwCzy5LjA4J2W7ekmjqgqA_QVlcS73...

I also think the time commitment expectations and the like should be documented for other roles, but we should split those things off into a separate issue scope as per #18.

I updated the MR based on #17. It is much shorter now. Setting to NR for feedback on that step.

In regards to the follow up, if we are going to add more detail to all roles then the roles should be in separate files and treated as individual job descriptions.

I adjusted the definitions of both based on the previous larger list. The core team facilitator was missing event related meeting organization (and DA related meetings were entirely missing). The initiative facilitator is not a meeting organizer role but rather a meta-mentor that helps spread best practices, swoops in to unblock things, helps promote success, etc.

@Gábor Hojtsy, thanks! That is much better.

I have made one small grammar fix. I think this is a suitable next step here and further work can be done in followups. In regard to that I've been thinking about how to update the stub document referred to in #19. I might work on that in the next week.

Looks great to me too. (I just nitpicked some grammar and style guidelines things.)

"Needs followup" for skills and minimum time commitment estimates for all the roles.

Follow up made for #24, #3382029: Add skills and time committment to roles → . I think that was the only follow up, so removing tag.

Let’s ask for Pam’s signoff on this. If she agrees the definition of her role based on her experience, I think this can be RTBC.

This description seems fine, it's not really what I've been doing but it's what we could use :)

@pameeela, thanks!

I don't see any tasks to do here to returning to Needs Review.

@pameeela, thanks!

I don't see any tasks to do here to returning to Needs Review.

Removed the outdated text from the issue summary because it could be misleading. People should look at the MR.

This looks great to me! Thank you for working on this. This can be merged.

Committed, thanks all!

Automatically closed - issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.