Prior to the fork Node.js was run using a Benevolent Dictator for Life model. After merging with io.js the project adopted a consensus seeking model for landing all changes and governance.
The project has seen a resurgence in contribution in the new model, but it is not without it's own problems. The sessions will examine the reality of these different models and lessons learned.
Prior to the io.js fork the Node.js project was being maintained using a Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL) model under the stewardship of Joyent. While the project initially had impressive engagement, the enthusiasm of the collaborators slowed as individuals felt less empowered to help drive change in the project and felt the project was moving at too slow a pace.
In January 2015 key members of the community forked Node.js and io.js was born. One of the key differences between the projects was io.js's adoption of an open-open source model for collaborators. Any individual who landed a change would be given a commit-bit and any change could land if consensus was reached between collaborators.
In October of 2015 Node.js and io.js merged as Node.js v4.0.0. While the merging of the two code bases was a technical accomplishment, the tougher challenge was the merging of two disparate governance structures. With the stewardship of the project being handed over to the Node Foundation with a variety of enterprise members, it was yet again time to re-visit the governance structure of the project.
Today the Node.js project is run using a consensus seeking model with a Core Technical Committee (CTC) to defer to when a consensus cannot be met. Commit-bits are handed out to active contributors, but not nearly as liberally as before the merger. Under the CTC is a number of working-groups that focus on specific technical problems including LTS, streams, vendor-neutral ABI, and testing. Above the CTC is a Technical Steering Committee (TSC) that is responsible for reporting to the Foundations Board of Directors.
This session will use the story of Node.js to discuss the positive and negative aspects of a variety of open source governance models. There is most definitely no silver bullet, and the project is still learning and improving as we go. Hopefully sharing this information will help other projects make informed decisions about the way in which they want to govern their project and community.
