BIDS Governance Proposal

[franklin-feingold]

Hi @bids-standard/everyone !

A few weeks ago at our BIDS community meeting (at OHBM), one central takeaway was the need for a governance structure. Since then we (credit: with @nicholst) have been working on a potential governance proposal for the community to review and get feedback on. This has been constructed with feedback from the discussion on this decision making PR (#104), governance resources (#245), the survey (#252) and looking at several different other organization governances structures.

Please find the proposed governance structure (also the direct link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R-J2lL9V_wIkYhye4zH-feyl4P4J8NyO40rIYyY141o/edit).

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and discussing enhancements to this proposal!

Thank you!

---

Update (7/18) on proposed governance timeline:
Update (8/12): pushing back Sept 1 freeze to Sept 15

Until Sept 15th - The governance document commenting and editing period open.

On Sept 15th to Oct 1st - The governance document will freeze to integrate the comments and feedback. The voting procedure will be further discussed and a 1-month reminder will be given.

Oct 1st - The document will be finalized and voting begins.

Oct 15 - The voting closes and results posted. If successful, the governance document will be merged into this repository.

This is a proposed timeline for potentially incorporating the governance document into BIDS. Please let us know if this can be enhanced or potentially propose another timeline.

[emdupre]

Thanks, @franklin-feingold and @nicholst ! I think this is a really thoughtful proposal.

I've added in several questions, mostly around integrating the BEP leads with the steering committee, and how different areas of expertise could or should be represented there.

[chrisgorgo]

Indeed great effort!

My two cents (ignore those comments if you wish - since my involvement has greatly reduced I don't want to block anything):

1. Is this document going to replace or be integrated with https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/blob/master/DECISION-MAKING.md?
2. It would be good if the new rules outlined who makes a decision about what can be handled by a simple pull request and what requires the whole BEP process.

[sappelhoff]

Thanks for the work!

Let's make sure to get some iterations of feedback and suggestions on this! For example from the BEP leads --> @bids-standard/bep_leads

[nicholst]

See also a useful collection of "awesome governance resources" curated by @vsoch: https://github.com/good-labs/awesome-governance

[vsoch]

I definitely have found it very helpful to look at other examples when giving feedback on or helping to write a governance structure. I'm hoping that GitHub makes the GOVERNANCE.md "a thing" some day, or akin to the polyform project for licenses, a similar team of experts can develop different well developed "modules" for this kind of document for others to select from.

[franklin-feingold]

I think the governance proposal can be a complementary document with the decision-making document. The governance proposal is for the structure where the decision-making governs the mechanism of making the decision.

I like making the distinction between PR and BEP process. I'll add this language into the proposal.

Thank you for the awesome governance resources @vsoch !

[franklin-feingold]

I have updated my initial comment with a proposed timeline for potentially integrating the governance document into BIDS. Please let me know thoughts or propose another potential timeline.

[sappelhoff]

+1 for the timeline, perhaps it'd be good to include it at the top of the governance GoogleDoc. What do you think?

[PeerHerholz]

Nothing substantial, but I think a graphical representation (along the lines of boxes and arrows) of the leadership structure, maybe including some workflow examples, might help new folks to grasp everything more easily (potentially also aiding their way of becoming an active part of the community).

[poldrack]

totally agree - maybe have something on "pathways to participation"?

…

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Peer Herholz ***@***.***> wrote: Nothing substantial, but I think a graphical representation (along the lines of boxes and arrows) of the leadership structure <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R-J2lL9V_wIkYhye4zH-feyl4P4J8NyO40rIYyY141o/edit#bookmark=id.y2yr6itn36kv>, maybe including some workflow examples, might help new folks to grasp everything more easily (potentially also aiding their way of becoming an active part of the community). — You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#260?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAGUVEGGFXITJEHDSKHRGNTQANGQXA5CNFSM4H4WOK22YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD2NTC2I#issuecomment-513487209>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGUVEFQDWMYGAOZCKNFUTTQANGQXANCNFSM4H4WOK2Q> .

-- Russell A. Poldrack Albert Ray Lang Professor of Psychology Professor (by courtesy) of Computer Science Bldg. 420, Jordan Hall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 poldrack@stanford.edu http://www.poldracklab.org/

[PeerHerholz]

I think that would would be highly related to the work that's going on in enh/contrib-pathways, no? Should/could that be linked/integrated somehow?

[franklin-feingold]

perhaps it'd be good to include it at the top of the governance GoogleDoc

I have added the timeline onto the top of the governance document

I think a graphical representation (along the lines of boxes and arrows) of the leadership structure

I think this would be a good addition! I have added a comment at the leadership structure section to do this.

maybe have something on "pathways to participation"?
I think that would would be highly related to the work that's going on in enh/contrib-pathways, no?

Yes, pretty related. The enh/contrib-pathways is for enhancing the contributor's guide in an effort to make the contribution pathway more clear. I think keeping the contributing separated from the governance document will keep both more focused on their purposes. I think the contributor's guide can be referenced in the governance document to link out for more details and information.

Perhaps there can be more to integrate than the linking out?

[sappelhoff]

+1 for a graphical representation of the leadership / governance structure and how BIDS works with its groups and roles. This is something we should take on once the governance proposal is agreed upon. However if somebody wants to get started now, I think it might also help to understand the proposal better and iterate towards a resolution.

I think keeping the contributing separated from the governance document will keep both more focused on their purposes.

+1 ... I think new contributors should be onboarded using our contributor's guide, and the governance doc should be a reference if a contributor wants to make the next steps and deepen their involvement.

As such, the "contributors guide" should be "low effort first steps", whereas the governance doc should be the set of rules and processes we live by.

Feel free to argue these points, this is just an initial opinion.

[PeerHerholz]

This is something we should take on once the governance proposal is agreed upon. However if somebody wants to get started now, I think it might also help to understand the proposal better and iterate towards a resolution.

+1 I think both options are doable and I don't have a strong preference towards either. What are you thinking @franklin-feingold, @emdupre, @poldrack, @vsoch?

I think keeping the contributing separated from the governance document will keep both more focused on their purposes.
+1 ... I think new contributors should be onboarded using our contributor's guide, and the governance doc should be a reference if a contributor wants to make the next steps and deepen their involvement.

As such, the "contributors guide" should be "low effort first steps", whereas the governance doc should be the set of rules and processes we live by.

Yeah, I was thinking of two separate documents/resources that are however linked together (closely). E.g. that the graphical representation of the leadership structure (or the respective section in the governance proposal) includes pointers where new folks can become a part, help out, getting starting and that these pointers link to the contribution, bids-starter-kit, etc. .

[franklin-feingold]

+1 I think both options are doable and I don't have a strong preference towards either.

I don't have a strong preference towards either as well. I think as we get closer to finalizing and voting this can be revisited and will be in a closer final state to generate the graphical representation.

E.g. that the graphical representation of the leadership structure (or the respective section in the governance proposal) includes pointers where new folks can become a part, help out, getting starting and that these pointers link to the contribution, bids-starter-kit, etc.

I agree this would be a really good graphical representation! To clarify the representation - this would be the full path perhaps, an example, starting out with BIDS -> contributing -> joining groups/BEP -> leading a group ? With pointers to more information at each step along the way? Clarifying and concreting the path would be really helpful!

[francopestilli]

I like the idea of a graphical representation. +2 cents.

[franklin-feingold]

@PeerHerholz @sappelhoff @francopestilli have added a graphic representation of the structure to the governance document

I think the contributing pathways are separate and can be generated after the voting has been completed as we (hopefully!) put our governance structure into practice

[francopestilli]

@franklin-feingold this is really nice and helpful!

[franklin-feingold]

voting has opened! information in - #342

[franklin-feingold]

governance proposal has been approved! finalizing the conversation and placing it into this repo!

Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback and reviews!