Starshot governance

I don't think creating the Starshot governance under the Technical Working Group is the way to go. While it has been historically hard to change governance indeed, and that was the best way to do for coding standards, Starshot is not supposed to be lead from a technical standpoint but rather a user needs / product standpoint, so I think it needs to be set up differently, not just for the sake of paperwork but also perception. Dries pledged his focus on this project, so I don't think it will be a problem to set up whatever governance structure needed so long as the right kind of people are there.

The starshot group can include as much product people as necessary under the auspices of the technical working group though? I only suggested this to save time, if it doesn't save time, it's not worth considering - but also I will note there is no other issue yet, so when is that expected?

Starshot is not supposed to be lead from a technical standpoint but rather a user needs / product standpoint

It needs to be a combination of these - you can't meet the user / product needs without good technical foundations.

I don't want to contribute from a technical standpoint, but if there's any need for insight from a sales and/or user perspective, I'd be interested in tagging along if I can be helpful.

I would like to nominate for a governance group. I'm interested in the balance of the open source benefits vs starshot success.

I agree a governance group is crucial for this project. My understanding is the TWG may be going away:

#3361198: Discuss the future of the Technical Working Group (TWG) →

Though I don't think that matters since I agree the Starshot Working Group (or whatever it's called) could stand on its own IMO.

There are subcommittees and working groups for the DA Board. But, maybe all the working group members are board members, I didn't cross reference:

https://www.drupal.org/association/board/committees →

Is there any progress with the Drupal CMS governance (since the leadership team has been announced)? Or what are the next steps/plans? Thanks!

so I think it needs to be set up differently,

@gábor hojtsy, what do you suggest?

At the time this issue was created, there was no leadership team or really any firm idea of what Starshot would be.

Much has happened since then, and there are also a number of open issues to address specific aspects of governance. Do folks feel this issue is still relevant? Happy to leave it open if so, but it does feel pretty outdated. (Note, I am not saying that Drupal CMS governance is fully documented, just that this thread is missing a whole lot of context.)

Drupal core has a mature governance with a large amount of policies. I do not expect Drupal CMS do have something like this (at least not in the start), but I expect a stable product marketed by Drupal / Drupal association / drupal.org website to have at least some policies in place, so that the community would know what to expect. So I personally think that a set of rules and policies is a blocker for a stable release for the product with a potential to be shipped to thousands of customers.

I do not see the point 4. as done:

4. Starshot would then have its own documentation and policies as part of the starshot project.

Where are the policies? I know only about this documentation: https://git.drupalcode.org/project/drupal_cms/-/wikis/home , which seems mostly like a contribution documentation to me, rather than a list of policies which should apply to the Drupal CMS product. If the policies are somewhere documented, then I am sorry, I probably missed that.

What I think as a policies are a basic rules for committers, what is allowed/not allowed to be included (and/or changed) in which phase, what can sites expect from the RC/stable product, some policies about the development, some policies regarding the security and similar. Not saying this must be done at once. Thanks!